Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s7: The Tantrayuktivicāra by Nīlamegha Bhiṣaj

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s7

Language
English

Contents

The Tantrayuktivicāra by Nīlamegha Bhiṣaj

v3.c43.s7.1

The *Tantrayuktivicāra* by Nīlamegha Bhiṣaj⁵³⁹ is a short treatise,⁵⁴⁰ which consists of thirty-six ślokas, accompanied by a rather extensive auto-commentary. It defines, in the same order, the thirty-six tantrayuktis which are found at the end of the *Carakasaṃhitā* (Si.12.41–45ab)⁵⁴¹ and the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* (U.50.148–153). Only one item has been added to the series (aviparyaya, after viparyaya), without affecting the number of yuktis and verses as given in the text.

v3.c43.s7.2

The tantrayuktis⁵⁴² are technical terms for the procedures which are necessary in order to arrive at a correct understanding and interpretation of scientific treatises. Vāgbhaṭa describes their function in the following way: “The tantrayuktis are like the rays of the sun on a pond with lotuses whose flowers are closed, and like the light of a lamp in a dark house. A person who studies the textbooks without being familiar with the tantrayuktis fails to grasp the meaning of what he reads, just as one fails to acquire wealth when one’s good fortune declines. By establishing the meaning of sentences, the tantrayuktis provide one with the desired success (in debates), enabling one to refute the positions of those holding erroneous views. They reveal the meaning of utterances when these are hidden, interchanged, hinted at or indirectly expressed, and are said to be the essence of the ocean of the rules of speech” (A.s.U.50.154–157).

v3.c43.s7.3

The tantrayuktis are only enumerated, not defined, in the *Carakasaṃhitā* and the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*. Definitions and elucidations are supplied in the commentaries of Cakrapāṇidatta and Gaṅgādhara, Indu’s commentary on the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*, and, above all, in Aruṇadatta’s commentary on the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya*.⁵⁴³ A list of thirty-two tantrayuktis, accompanied by explanations and illustrations, and commented on by Dalhaṇa, is found at the end of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* (U.65). Another list, resembling that of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*, and also consisting of thirty-two items, occurs at the end of the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* (adhikaraṇa 15).⁵⁴⁴ A list of thirty-two tantrayuktis, almost in the same order as in the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*, is found in the *Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa*.⁵⁴⁵

v3.c43.s7.4

The definitions of the tantrayuktis in the work of Nīlamegha Bhiṣaj seem to be his own, or are those as expounded by his guru Sundara;⁵⁴⁶ in the latter case he only wrote the commentary.

v3.c43.s7.5

The authoritative works quoted in his commentary are in the first place the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* and *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*, while the *Caraka-* and *Suśrutasaṃhitā* rank second; Bhela, *Gopālikā*, *tāntrikāḥ*, and Parāśara are quoted once only.⁵⁴⁷

v3.c43.s7.6

In the beginning and at the end the author mentions his name, Nīlamegha Bhiṣaj, and his second name, Vaidyanātha. The title of the work is given only at the end.

v3.c43.s7.7

The treatise opens with salutations to Vāhaṭa: “May the physician Rāmagupta, who received his discernment from Avalokiteśvara,⁵⁴⁸ who is famous in this world under the name of Vāhaṭa, the moon of Sindhu from the lineage of Saṅghagupta,⁵⁴⁹ be present before our eyes”. The second verse refers to Indu and Jajjaṭa as pupils of Vāhaṭa. The third verse proclaims the author’s reverence for Ātreya and the other great sages, for the guru Āryavalokita,⁵⁵⁰ Āryatārā,⁵⁵¹ Śrīsaṅghagupta, Vāhatarāmagupta, and the ācārya Sundara, while the fourth verse extols the excellence of the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*. After

v3.c43.s7.8

quoting the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* (U.50.155, 150–153, 157), Nīlamegha makes it explicit that he composed his work according to the teaching of his guru Sundara.

The author

v3.c43.s7.t1.1

According to Kolatteri Śaṅkaramenon, this guru Sundara may be Sundarabhaṭṭācārya, the author of a work on toxicology, called *Lakṣaṇāmṛta*.⁵⁵² Kolatteri Śaṅkaramenon is of the opinion that both Sundara and Nīlamegha⁵⁵³ hail from Kerala,⁵⁵⁴ which is very probable indeed, because the only MS of Nīlamegha’s treatise belongs to a member of one of the aṣṭavaidya families of Kerala, who adhere to Vāgbhaṭa’s teachings, as Nīlamegha did himself.

Date

v3.c43.s7.t2.1

Kolatteri Śaṅkaramenon places Nīlamegha in the first half of the ninth century,⁵⁵⁵ the period in which Śaṅkarācārya lived,⁵⁵⁶ because Buddhist influences are still traceable in Nīlamegha’s composition. He is convinced that Nīlamegha knew only the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*, which he assigns to the first quarter of the eighth century, and not yet the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*, which he regards as having been composed by a grandson or great-grandson of the author of the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*.⁵⁵⁷ Kolatteri Śaṅkaramenon’s views on the dates of the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* and *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā* can be discarded. He is wrong in asserting that Nīlamegha did not yet know the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā* because the latter work is profusely quoted in his auto-commentary, also when not identical with the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*.⁵⁵⁸ Nīlamegha’s references to Indu and Jejjaṭa as pupils of Vāgbhaṭa imply that he lived later than these commentators and cannot be earlier than about A.D. 700. The Buddhist influences point to a date not much posterior to A.D. 800.

Linked texts (8)